Lay of Leithian Mafia: Game Over!

[Elmocrates]

I would say "Look! you're doing it again!" but at this point we are starting to get circular and this argument has gone past the point of diminishing returns. I don't think you are scum and I don't have particular reason to think Jack is town so I am officially dropping this.

If you want, we can continue talking about this after the game.

-crates

Vote Count 08: Lynch

Starbuck - 1 - PaltryExcuse
Drippereth - 2 - Cyberbob, xvart
Steam Powered Shovel - 1 - Starbuck
SensFan - 1 - Steam-Powered Shovel,
FeFiFoFum - 1 - Jack
xvart -

7

- Elmocrates, Budja, Kmd4390, farside22, ooba, FeFiFoFum, Anon
Anon - 1 - Elscouta
MehPlusRawr - 1 - Papa Zito
xofelf - 1 - SensFan
Jack - 4 - SpyreX, Iecerint, SocioPath, J-Scope
Cyberbob - 1 - Cobalt
Papa Zito - 1 - Drippereth
Elscouta - 1 - curiouskarmadog

Not Voting (2): MehPlusRawr, xofelf

With 25 players alive it'll take 13 to lynch and 13 to no-Lynch.

There are no players in the

Halls of Mandos

, so right now there are no

Revive

or

Destroy

counts.

Happy birthday, Kmd!

[Cobalt]

Sorry about the posting gap, Easter weekend is a busy one for me.

I'll post something more substantial tomorrow (too tired to focus on very many things atm) but I do want to just look at this:

I'm scum and don't want people to realize you've figured out my entire scum team's plot to make you look as bad as possible by piling every single one of our votes on you.

And say lol? I don't even know how to react to this because

nobody

is dumb enough to say this unsarcastically; but on the other hand you aren't showing any objective signs of actually being sarcastic.

all these arguments are stupid. cyberbob's post is scummy. bob is scum please kill him

[Budja]

^ that is suss as Cyberbob has no such reaction over's Elscouta claim.

FoS Cyberbob

@Elmo, Jack joined years ago and has over 2k posts. I would assume he wasn't just a VI.

Zito's lurker hunt amuses me. Your being a

little

hypocritical there. So what you think of xvart? Jack? etc. (That kind-of grammatically sucks )

[xofelf]

But whoever it was that said i was focusing too much on play is right. I probably am. Except in the past games i've played with them, both Sens and KMD the way they play each game more often than not reveals their role. They react differently to the exact same thing depending on their alignment that game. That would be why i was asking about it so early on. Even the way they react to the questions posed to them does more than they think on reads. And that is all i'm going to say at this time about that.

I'm going to call bullshit on this. I've talked with very good players who have played (and read) multpile games of mine, and all of them have told me I don't have any meta tells. More importantly, I just checked every single game I've played on this site and not been replaced in; xofelf was in only 2 of those. I was Town in one of them, and killed N0 in the other (also as Town).

So yeah, no way I buy that someone of xofelf's experience has any meta tells on me.

Unvote, Vote: xofelf

I never said that with you it was all games i

played

with you that gave me that. You had me read a few games where you weren't town to show me just how badly you fooled them. Also, did you count the games NOT on this site that you and i have played?
I never said you had a meta either. Because, you're right, you don't. BUT the way you respond to everything is different each game depending on alignment in every case i've seen.
No i'm not using previous games. I'm using what i know of you as person, and how you react outside of game to the games. Did you not notice which players i apply the same tactic to? The only ones i have ever known and seen outside of these forums.

[Jack]

Yes. Xofelf pretty clearly said "

Except

in the past games i've played with them". So Sens with his "more importantly" is off base.

Although I can see how you would read it the wrong way, because if you start at the beginning "But whoever...", it isn't as clear how "Except" is being used. Sometimes people say except instead of "but". But for that to be the case she would need to have said "Except

that

".

So yeah, that's a pointless little semantics argument.

[ooba]

Post 7:
Tries too hard to make sure its not a random vote?

Post *1:
Think xvart is joking here about the claimed scum bit

Post 41:
Not sure which parts of this post are meant to be funny and which parts serious

Post 44:
An FoS seems like an over reaction. I'm having a terrible time reading if people are joking or not

Post 45:
When you consider the fact that not random voting almost always without fail draws suspicion on the perpetrator, why in the world would scum not random vote?. WIFOM

Post 46/47/48:
Wow - can't believe that vote was serious ..

Post 52:
Cyberbob - not seeing much in either Elscouta (where he gives his reason as to why he doesn't think so) or xvart (where he doesn't).

Post 5*/54 -
Got to agree with this. Sign your names or be prepared to be attacked on issues like this

Post 55:
"Sens: I assume you believe anti-town ≠ scummy. Why anti-town before scummy? Would you lynch someone for being anti-town before scummy?" - I think Sens meant that during Day 1, he would vote for anti-town actions before he eventually voted for scummy actions which he finds.. Correct me if I'm wrong

Post 60:
Oh. Guess I was wrong. Then why not just lynch the worst lurker on Day 1?

Post 62:

xvart: How exactly is just throwing a vote out applying useful scrutiny?

Well for starters it shows I'm serious about it; and second, there seems to be a leading bandwagon going so I think that is useful scrutiny.

xvart.

This is more hindsight than anything else - but I like this post from xvart - gives me town vibes

Post 66:

I don't see any thing in claiming scum/scumbuddies to be inherently town.

There's nothing in signing your name at the bottom of each post that's inherently town, either - that's obviously not sufficient to suspect someone. It has to be, you know, actually suspicious. Do you find it suspicious?

Do not like this post. I think claiming scumbuddy just serves to confuse the town and is anti-town in some measures. (irrespective of whether town people are as likely to do it as scum). Comparing it with a neutral action like signing the name at the bottom of the post is ridiculous

Post 7*:
Whats wrong with serious votes in RVS stage - we get over random voting faster and actual discussion can start
FOS: Starbuck

Post 9*:
Iecerint: Why cant you let Starbuck answer questions directed to him?

Post 94:
Wow. I thought Sens play was decent. Lots of negative emotions. Forced?

Post 99:
Post by J-Scope resonates with most of my thoughts.

Post 102:
And I thought I had a town read on xvart. Maybe a townie who is overdefensive.

Post 10*:
"t's sad how you can never read me." - Why attack the player instead of the actual argument behind what he said?

Note to self: Got to read the game they're talking about later. Why does starbuck argue against it so much - easiest thing to do is to accept it and move on ..

Post 1*2:
Hmm

I'll wait till Jack replies on the "breadcrumb"

---

Now that I've caught up - I think I'll

Unvote. Vote: Papa Zito

. More content as to who you feel is scummy instead of pointing out lurkers please.

[Cyberbob]

^ that is suss as Cyberbob has no such reaction over's Elscouta claim.

FoS Cyberbob

To be honest I haven't really been reading much, the last day or two have pretty much been one thing after another IRL (mostly due to Easter family gatherings) and I haven't been able to be very active on the internet at all. There's nothing on today (ironically enough given that it's Easter Sunday) so I will be able to read everything and actually get back into the game proper.

[Papa Zito]

Zito's lurker hunt amuses me. Your being a

little

hypocritical there. So what you think of xvart? Jack? etc. (That kind-of grammatically sucks )

Glad you're amused. It's a game, after all.

I haven't gotten much of anything out of these pages. Everything's too splintered. I can say I'm fairly confident that xofelf is scum though... lots and lots of talking about playstyles and meta and other crap. Have an iso look.

I'd be voting there if I didn't think MehPlusRawr's lurking (is that a hydra?) was more egregious.

[Budja]

It is a game ... that we generally fight tooth and nail to win (or at least try to (most-times)).

I see your point on xofelf (meta back and forth with sens is only content)

MehPlusRawr has confirmed but not posted on the site since Thursday. Not worth a vote now.

However, the fact you see an inactive lurker to be more worth your vote is just plain odd.

If you are looking for interesting things to comment on:
xvart seems to compulsively misrep/generalise. Agree/disagree? Scummy or not?
Jack made a random cop breadcrumb comment and and produces little content. I found that scummy. Do you agree?

(^ Anyone who hasn't commented on them can consider those directed at them BTW)

[Elmocrates]

The avatar is epic. Thanks!

By Elmo's logic, cops should claim D1, because protective roles will be able to find them, anyway.

@Elmo, Jack joined years ago and has over 2k posts. I would assume he wasn't just a VI.

Can we please please not abbreviate Elmocrates as Elmo? That's going to get confusing fast. (I assume that and not just please read the post sig.) Thanks.

Iecerint: Did you think it was likely that JackScum would (future tense) do that? (I am not asking if you think Jack is likely scum given that he did that.) I don't read anything into Jack's comment; that said, I'm not terribly enamoured with his play thus far, so I'm not going to defend him.

---

I just checked every single game I've played on this site and not been replaced in; xofelf was in only 2 of those.

{..}

So yeah, no way I buy that someone of xofelf's experience has any meta tells on me. Unvote, Vote: xofelf

I never said that with you it was all games i

played

with you that gave me that. You had me read a few games where you weren't town to show me just how badly you fooled them. Also, did you count the games NOT on this site that you and i have played?

I mean, I waited to see what she'd say, but I read this post and immediately thought that she had probably

read

games you were in. I fairly regularly follow games that have players I'm interested in or happen to know. This just looks really thin, since there's no way you can reasonably know for sure whether she's seen your play as scum or not.

So yeah, no way I buy that someone of xofelf's experience has any meta tells on me.

That's a very odd way to put it, in particular. Even if she did actually (or thought she did) have a meta tell on you, you'd be arguing that she's

wrong

. The only case where it's important that she doesn't actually have a tell on you is if you're scum in this game.

I never said you had a meta either. Because, you're right, you don't. BUT the way you respond to everything is different each game depending on alignment in every case i've seen.

I'm sorry, what definition of metagaming are you using, then? That's pretty much the (or an) exact definition of having a meta. Again, why aren't you willing to say more than what you've already said?

I don't even know how to react to this because

nobody

is dumb enough to say this unsarcastically

; but on the other hand you aren't showing any objective signs of actually being sarcastic.

Do you not think that might be a sign of sarcasm?

Do not like this post. I think claiming scumbuddy just serves to confuse the town and is anti-town in some measures. (irrespective of whether town people are as likely to do it as scum). Comparing it with a neutral action like signing the name at the bottom of the post is ridiculous

It isn't, they both meet the criteria he laid out for suspecting Elscouta, which are therefore clearly wrong, as I said in the post you just quoted. I've never said they're similar beyond that.

There's a good quarter of the game not doing much.

Elmo

[Cyberbob]

Alrighty, so this post is basically gettingbackuptospeed.txt:

Starting reading from my post on the 2nd, which is Post 64:

• Elmocrates' Post 66 makes some strong points against xvart, more specifically the ones about his lack of pressure on Elscouta after putting his vote down.
  
• Starbuck's Post 73 makes another good point though I would have liked it if she'd gone a bit further into who specifically she thinks was being opportunistic.
  
• xvart's Post 79 is logically coherent enough (as long as you accept the rather iffy premise about Elscouta's intentions) but his response to Elmocrates' aforementioned point about his lack of pressure feels really disingenuous. It also took an explicit statement from Elscouta about the meaning of his post for xvart to finally get what almost everyone else had ages ago.
  
• Kmd's Post 84 is a good one.
  
• I disagree with Iec's Post 86, or at least his argument about Kmd's treatment of Sens' point. If I saw someone consistently doing something I found very scummy/antitown I would try and stamp that behaviour out with policy lynches.
  
• Agree with Drippereth's Post 90 in the sense that Starbuck was certainly defending Elscouta but I don't know if I'd say that they're
  definitely
  scumbuddies if one of them is scum. Townies attack what they perceive to be bad cases all the time.
  
• Don't like xofelf's Post 94. Gut feeling.
  
• I wish J-Scope would have gone into a bit more detail about why he has a town read on xvart in Post 99. He does put into words rather nicely my feeling about xofelf's post however.
  
• I don't like the way xvart keeps portraying other people's arguments in stupidly outlandish rhetorical questions. Kinda smells of strawmanning IMO.
  
• Starbuck's Post 103 is nice in that she finally goes into who she was talking about and why she isn't voting them, but I would've liked a little more than two one-liners.
  
• Don't like all the talk about previous games and whatnot in the middle of Page 5, I don't really see that it has much relevance to this one.
  
• Wow, ooba's reasoning for voting xvart in Post 128 is
  terrible
  .
  
• Both FeFiFoFum's and Anon's votes for xvart in Posts 144 and 145 respectively are pretty lazy.
  
• I wish SensFan wouldn't be so caught up in discussing meta tells, but like the RVS chat earlier that's a matter of playstyle I guess. Would still be nice if he could find some time to talk about something else.
  
• xvart does a good job of explaining himself in Post 152 I feel, it would have been handy of him to do so earlier though considering how much attention he has continued to tie up (that is now apparently invalid).
  
• The Page 7 discussion about breadcrumbing is almost totally incoherent; the non sequiturs are flying thick and fast from all sides. I would love to know where the hell Jack came up with the cop-word though.
  
• Don't like SocioPath's vote in Post 171. This game is building a very long list of lazy votes.
  
• Budja's Post 172 is playing both sides of the fence bigtime.
  
• I still don't get Kmd's comment in Post 175 that I highlighted earlier. I must be thick.
  
• Cobalt has been absolutely useless. 4 posts all game, two of them being nothing more than unvote/votes and the other two being nonsensical oneliners.
  
• Re Budja's 202: Elscouta's "claim" was really stupidly obviously referring to a previous game from the very beginning. Kmd's is clearly just as obviously something similarly innocuous; can someone explain to me what that is?
  
• More metachat (and nothing else) from xofelf in Post 203. Talk about something else please.

And with that I'm more or less up to speed... I'm not liking xofelf, Cobalt, Budja, ooba or Budja. Xvart's constant misrepresentations are annoying but I don't think they're scummy; he just thinks he's being clever.

Unvote, Vote: Cobalt

. Post content please.

[Cyberbob]

Do you not think that might be a sign of sarcasm?

Well that's what I was thinking, but usually when people are being sarcastic you can tell by the wording of what they're saying. I couldn't find anything in Kmd's statement of that nature so that threw me a bit.

[Budja]

Budja's Post 172 is playing both sides of the fence bigtime.

I like both wagons. Is that bad?

Kmd's is clearly just as obviously something similarly innocuous; can someone explain to me what that is?

It seemed like an appropriate response to xvarts generalizations (I'm beginning to like that word.). (of course KMD ought to answer).
...but I get what you meant now.

[Cyberbob]

I like both wagons. Is that bad?

That's not a bad thing in of itself but your post was some seriously sleazy waffling.

[Iecerint]

ooba, please note the author of the posts in the future. i don't really know who you're referring to and can't be bothered to check all of them, frankly. if you want people to read your allusions, adding ATTN-type information is helpful.

Which question are you talking about? Do you mean Elli's scumlink? I jumped in because I had reason to believe it was invalid for a reason that Elli probably didn't know about. This is a habit of mine. Prevents us from wasting time on stuff I know is not fruitful. I suppose it kinda backfired this time, but w/e. <_<

Elmo, I was personally surprised to see Jack do that. He has seemed highly perceptive in my prior experience with him. I think he wouldn't have done that as town without an expected short-term payoff. When it didn't come, scumJack became the default assumption. His decision to avoid the issue since then makes me pretty comfortable with my assumption.

HOWEVER

Complete bull from Cyberbob. I'm sort of focusing in on the part about me, but that part is crap. Namely, I didn't say policy lynches were bad; I said policy lynches are different from SF's vote IMO. Also, the vote that follows is like LOL-inducing OMGUS IMO. His only allusion to Cobalt is to claim that he is "useless," whereas one of said posts points out a totally reasonable inconsistency in CB's behavior. (Well, at least a respond-to-able one.) He also ignores the Iec-Jack issue 100%, which possibly implies an unfavorable Jack connection.

Also, LOL @ complaining about the "uselessness" of Cobalt in a catchup post. XD Still, fair enough @ Cobalt only posting a little I guess.

HMM.

Unvote; Vote: Cyberbob

. I think Budja's point about the discrepancy between Cyberbob's behavior relative to Els and Kmd was shaky-ish, but CB's failure to address it looks bad. Also, what he DID address looks bad. I can't speak for the aspects of his bulleted list that I can't be bothered to read through right now; correct me if there's isolated brilliance in there somewhere, please.

/drunkpost

[SpyreX]

Elmocrates:

The move was a poor one on Jack's part. The reaction and absence of anything after that point is the real hook.

[Budja]

Why do more votes make this wagon look tempting .
Proof to me you are more useful than xvart or I might just switch.

@Cyber, This is "sleazy waffling" . Elaborate please?

^generic agreement with SpyreX. I meant to mention Jacks latest useless post before but it got lost somehow.

@Iec, the point I raised against Cyber was answered (albeit not entirely clearly).

[Iecerint]

^ Really? Find it for me, please. Did not see.

[Iecerint]

EBWOP: Do you mean 206? Because his text literally has nothing to do with your point AFAIK. Here is how the whole narrative goes:

Cobalt: VOTE CB
*time passes*
Cobalt: UMM GUYS CB IS SCUM CUZ (etc.)
Budja: LOLYA. FOR EXAMPLE, (etc.)
CB: HI GUYS. IT IS EASTER. THEREFORE, I WILL CATCH UP LATER!
CB: CATCH-UP POST! HOWEVER, I WILL REFRAIN FROM ADDRESSING COBALT/BUDJA'S ISSUE! BUDJA AND COBALT ARE SCUM THO! I WILL VOTE COBALT BECAUSE HE IS USELESS! (HERE ARE SOME OTHER FACTS ABOUT THE GAME SO THAT THIS IS NOT PURELY AN OMGUS POST.)

Find the missing puzzle piece plz.

[Steam-Powered Shovel]

xvart seems to compulsively misrep/generalise. Agree/disagree? Scummy or not?
Jack made a random cop breadcrumb comment and and produces little content. I found that scummy. Do you agree?

Agree. Not. No (scum generally better off just killing cop).

CyberBob, I believe kmd was mocking this comment of xvart:

Knowing my alignment and the target I put on myself I felt/feel that there are probably some scum on my wagon right now, so I started pushing back.

Complete bull from Cyberbob. I'm sort of focusing in on the part about me, but that part is crap.

Really? You have problems with one bullet point, so it's complete bull? You do admit that you're looking at only that part, but why do you feel the need to call it complete bull? Seems uncalled for.

[Cyberbob]

Damn Iec. If I'd known that one dotpoint of disagreement on a fairly minor issue was going to draw that kind of a frenzy out of you I wouldn't have stopped there.

His only allusion to Cobalt is to claim that he is "useless," whereas one of said posts points out a totally reasonable inconsistency in CB's behavior. (Well, at least a respond-to-able one.)

Have you even looked at Cobalt in isolation? I don't think you have.

He also ignores the Iec-Jack issue 100%, which possibly implies an unfavorable Jack connection.

I think you're getting a bit full of yourself there broheim. You made like three posts (not including those dumb EBWOPs - I would advise taking the time to think your posts through fully before hitting Submit) about him, all of which either took way too many words to say what you were saying or were simply intellectual masturbation.

Unvote; Vote: Cyberbob

. I think Budja's point about the discrepancy between Cyberbob's behavior relative to Els and Kmd was shaky-ish, but CB's failure to address it looks bad. Also, what he DID address looks bad. I can't speak for the aspects of his bulleted list

that I can't be bothered to read through right now

; correct me if there's isolated brilliance in there somewhere, please.

So you're writing paragraph after frenzied paragraph about my play but you can't even be bothered to read it. Nice one. In this one (1) case I will aid your illiteracy by quoting the part where I addressed Budja's point, but from now on I don't think it's too much to expect people to read my posts in a game of mafia.

Re Budja's 202: Elscouta's "claim" was really stupidly obviously referring to a previous game from the very beginning. Kmd's is clearly just as obviously something similarly innocuous; can someone explain to me what that is?

/drunkpost

Hahaha, yeah okay. I guess that explains all the retarded LOL @'s, IMO's and XD's.

Cobalt: VOTE CB
*time passes*
Cobalt: UMM GUYS CB IS SCUM CUZ (etc.)
Budja: LOLYA. FOR EXAMPLE, (etc.)
CB: HI GUYS. IT IS EASTER. THEREFORE, I WILL CATCH UP LATER!
CB: CATCH-UP POST! HOWEVER, I WILL REFRAIN FROM ADDRESSING COBALT/BUDJA'S ISSUE! BUDJA AND COBALT ARE SCUM THO! I WILL VOTE COBALT BECAUSE HE IS USELESS! (HERE ARE SOME OTHER FACTS ABOUT THE GAME SO THAT THIS IS NOT PURELY AN OMGUS POST.)

Find the missing puzzle piece plz.

yur rite thats totaly how it hapend!!1

[Cyberbob]

CyberBob, I believe kmd was mocking this comment of xvart:

Knowing my alignment and the target I put on myself I felt/feel that there are probably some scum on my wagon right now, so I started pushing back.

Ah, okay. I wish he would quote the posts he's responding to, but that makes sense.

[Cyberbob]

Sorry for the triple post, I missed this:

@Cyber, This is "sleazy waffling" . Elaborate please?

I look at it and all I see is someone setting himself up for a possible switch to another, more up-and-coming, wagon without running the risk of being called opportunistic. I feel more or less the same way about all those "well I

might

vote X but then again I might not - and if I do/don't it's someone else's fault" posts. Say that you like both wagons, sure - that's hardly an uncommon phenomenon regardless of alignment. But as soon as you start waffling about which one you might end up hopping on that just comes off as deliberately setting yourself up to avoid suspicion no matter what happens.

[Budja]

Cyber, I did post my FoS a few posts earlier.

[Cyberbob]

I know, and you could have just left it there.